Abstract
A solitary common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus entered the Venetian Lagoon and was monitored between June–December 2025. After roaming the lagoon for three months, it settled in Venice, with a preference for waters adjacent to San Marco Square – one of the world’s busiest tourist destinations – where it was consistently observed feeding on mullet (Mugilidae). The Venetian Lagoon was historically part of the range of Adriatic dolphins, but such records have been rare since the 1970s. The ‘dolphin of Venice’ soon became a celebrity, resulting in people attempting to feed, touch and interact with the animal, as well as guided tours and erratic approaches by boats. Such inappropriate behaviour by humans increased disturbance, and the risk of propeller/boat strikes and habituation to human proximity. Following evidence of disturbance and lesions, in November 2025 an attempt was made to drive the dolphin away from the high-risk waters of the San Marco Basin using boats and acoustic deterrents. However, the dolphin immediately returned. Here, we report on the monitoring efforts and actions undertaken, review the relevant regulations, and discuss the options of 1) acoustic deterrence, 2) capture/removal, and 3) tolerance combined with best management practice. We argue that the occurrence of such a charismatic animal could serve as a model for human-wildlife coexistence in urban environments, demanding compliance with existing laws, area-specific measures, appropriate implementation and patrolling, resolute deterrence of inappropriate human behaviour, continued monitoring, and efforts to promote the type of social change that leads to widespread appreciation of, and respect for, wildlife.
1 Introduction
Two dolphin species, the common dolphin Delphinus delphis and the common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus (hereafter ‘bottlenose dolphin’), used to be historically abundant in the northern Adriatic Sea (Bearzi et al., 2004, 2024a), and reportedly also occurred within the Venetian Lagoon (Trois, 1894) – including in the San Marco Basin and Giudecca Canal (Ceresole, 1894). The Mediterranean populations of these dolphin species, however, were subject to massive slaughter, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries, until the practice declined in the 1960s (Meliadò et al., 2020; Petitguyot et al., 2024). Large-scale slaughter also occurred in the Adriatic Sea (Bearzi et al., 2004, 2024a).
Although common dolphins were once abundant, the species almost completely disappeared from the Adriatic in the 1980s and 1990s, and has not recovered since (Bearzi et al., 2024a). Conversely, bottlenose dolphins – a resilient and opportunistic species known to survive in degraded environments (Bearzi et al., 2019) – have managed to persist, possibly benefiting from reduced predation pressure (sharks have declined dramatically in the Adriatic due to intensive fishing; Ferretti et al., 2013; Barausse et al., 2014). Bottlenose dolphins may also have benefited from decreased trophic competition resulting from the decline of other species.
Here, we describe the regular presence of a solitary bottlenose dolphin in the Venetian Lagoon between June and December 2025, reporting on the monitoring activities and the initiatives undertaken, and discussing the most appropriate management approaches to protect the animal.
2 Location and monitoring
A juvenile bottlenose dolphin, thought to be in good nutritional condition, was first sighted in the Venetian Lagoon on June 24th, 2025. The individual – estimated to be approximately 2-m long, sex unknown – was photo-identified and subsequently recognised based on its dorsal fin markings. The animal remained in the waters north-west of Chioggia until mid-July, and then moved to more northern portions of the lagoon (Figure 1). Since October 3rd, 2025, the dolphin was sighted regularly in the area south of the city of Venice, where it was still present by December 29th, 2025).
Figure 1
According to the protocol approved by the Region of Veneto (Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale 959 of August 12th, 2025), the activities and movements of the dolphin – nicknamed Mimmo, Clodio, Nane, etc. in various social media and mass media outlets – were monitored by experts from the Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science of the University of Padova – Cetacean strandings Emergency Response Team (hereafter, CERT). Monitoring started from the moment the dolphin was first sighted in lagoon waters, primarily to ensure animal welfare and public safety. Such monitoring was conducted approximately every week through visual observations conducted by CERT experts from small boats. Experts from the Venice Natural History Museum ‘Giancarlo Ligabue’ also supported the monitoring efforts. These first-hand observations by experts were complemented by reports (either from sea or from land, and occasionally including photographs and videos) by citizens and local authorities. The monitoring documented active feeding, frequent aerial behaviour, and instances of approach and interaction with vessels.
3 Early management initiatives
3.1 Code of conduct
Starting from June, CERT advised the authorities and citizens to comply with a Code of Conduct (Table 1) in the presence of the bottlenose dolphin – a species protected by national and international regulations (Table 2). This code of conduct became especially important when the dolphin began to occur regularly in the city area of Venice – particularly in the San Marco Basin and in the waters in front of San Marco Square (Figure 2) – soon becoming a phenomenon of great interest to citizens, tourists and the media.
Table 1
| Maintain a safety distance of 50 m |
| Comply with the speed limits and avoid accelerating, changing direction abruptly, or reversing |
| Do not offer food or throw objects into the sea |
| Do not attract the dolphin’s attention by shouting, making noise or banging on the boat |
| Do not approach or attempt any contact or interaction |
| For emergencies or further information, please call +39 366 925 6638 |
| The dolphin is a valuable guest in our lagoon. Observing it is a privilege, protecting it is a duty! |
Text of the leaflet ‘A Dolphin in the Lagoon: Code of Conduct in the Event of a Sighting’, produced and disseminated by CERT to limit risks to dolphin and people.
The original text is in Italian (English translation by the authors).
Table 2
|
Regulatory aspects relevant for the management and conservation of a protected cetacean species such as the ‘dolphin of Venice’.
Figure 2
Within the San Marco Basin, there were several records of blatant violations of current regulations, including guided tours to approach the animal, attempts to take close-up pictures, attempts to touch or offer food to the animal, and the throwing of various objects into the water. Such inappropriate behaviours could encourage the dolphin to interact more closely with humans, creating possible hazards for both the animal and the people. Disturbing and feeding a wild dolphin in Italy is punishable by law, and may represent a criminal offence (Table 2).
3.2 Attempt to drive the dolphin away
Following observations of the dolphin’s exposure to the risk of collision with boats in the San Marco Basin – an area of intense vessel traffic – as well as photographic documentation of lesions on its dorsal fin and dorsum consistent with propeller impact (first observed on November 12th, 2025; Figure 3), a coordinated large-scale intervention was carried out on November 15th, 2025, to test strategies for guiding the animal away from the highest-risk area (Capitaneria di Porto, 2025). Throughout the intervention, backed by the experts from CERT, dolphin behaviour was monitored in relation to boat traffic and acoustic disturbance.
Figure 3
Under the coordination of the Harbour Master’s Office and CERT, a total of 14 motorboats and patrol boats (approximately 7–14 m in length) operated by the main municipal authorities were deployed, arranged in two rows. The first row consisted of 6 boats equipped with acoustic deterrent devices (Acoustic Deterrent Device Model DiD01 by STM Products, Verona, Italy; SPL 168 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m), spaced approximately 30 metres apart; the second row, positioned about 10 m further back, consisted of 8 boats, 7 of which were equipped with metal bars to produce percussive underwater noises. The driving attempt began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 11:00 a.m. – after losing sight of the dolphin at 10:30 a.m.
The attempt to drive the dolphin away from the San Marco Basin was successful in terms of short-term dolphin displacement. During the intervention, the dolphin moved away from the San Marco Basin, towards Sant’Elena and then further south, towards the island of La Grazia – approximately 3 km away from its original location. Its response to combined anthropogenic disturbance (spatial deterrence by boats and acoustic deterrence by loud sounds) was assessed visually by the CERT experts onboard. The dolphin appeared calm and exhibited regular surfacings at a normal speed of travel (less than 4 km/h) while moving away from the sources of disturbance. However, at the end of the intervention the dolphin returned to the San Marco Basin – the area it seems to prefer – where its presence was recorded again at 11:30 a.m.
4 Discussion
Below, we frame the information reported above in the appropriate historical and ecological context. We review evidence indicating that the behaviour of this dolphin is not ‘abnormal’ – arguing that the animal does not need to be saved from threats other than inappropriate and illegal human behaviour. Finally, we discuss the management scenario, the risks involved, and the relevant options to protect the animal.
4.1 Historical information
The literature describing the occurrence of two cetacean species that used to be abundant in the northern Adriatic in historical times – common dolphin and bottlenose dolphin – is sometimes inconsistent, due in part to imprecise taxonomy and some confusion originating from the use of scientific and common names (possibly including the potentially misleading word ‘common’ in ‘common dolphin’). Specifically, Nardo (1854) listed the common dolphin as the only regular cetacean species in the Adriatic. De Marchesetti (1882) claimed that the most common species was Delphinus delphis, and that ‘Delphinus tursio’ (= T. truncatus) was less frequent. Faber (1883) considered D. delphis as the most common cetacean in the Adriatic, while according to Brusina (1889)D. delphis and T. truncatus were both common. Trois (1894) reported that common dolphins caught in the inner channels of the Venetian Lagoon were often put for sale at the Venice fish market, and reported that D. delphis was more abundant than T. truncatus in the northern Adriatic. Common dolphins were even reported to follow ships into ports (Kolombatović, 1882; Trois, 1894). Ninni (1901, 1904) considered D. delphis very common in the Adriatic Sea compared with ‘D. tursio’, which he considered rare. Inconsistencies including the report of a ‘D. tursio’ that was 6 m long (Ninni, 1901) suggest that cetological accounts by this author must be taken with caution. Vatova (1928) listed D. delphis as common throughout the Adriatic, while ‘T. tursio’ was considered ‘very rare’. However, the same author subsequently listed both species among the commonest marine animals to be found near Rovinj, Croatia (Vatova, 1932). D. delphis was the only cetacean listed as frequent in the catalogue of mammals of former Yugoslavia (Đulić and Tortić, 1960).
In the 1940s, large groups of common dolphins could still be seen near the coast in the Gulf of Trieste, but by the late 1970s there had been a noticeable decrease in this species in the northern Adriatic (Pilleri and Gihr, 1977). In the Venetian Lagoon, the occurrence of any dolphins has become a rare event since the 1970s (Rallo, 1976, 1979; Bearzi and Ferretti, 2000).
Despite some inconsistencies, the historical information indicates that the Venetian Lagoon used to be part of the natural range of dolphins in the Adriatic Sea (Ceresole, 1894; Trois, 1894). Common dolphins – once the most common species – have been largely eradicated (Bearzi et al., 2004). However, bottlenose dolphins – the only cetacean species that occurs regularly in the northern Adriatic in present times (Bearzi et al., 2024a) – might progressively return to the Venetian Lagoon, possibly encouraged by the availability of suitable prey, and could reside in inland waters at least occasionally if allowed to do so.
4.2 Abnormal behaviour?
The behaviour of the solitary bottlenose dolphin observed between June and December 2025 is consistent with the typical behaviour of the species. The dolphin likely entered the lagoon and subsequently settled in the waters south of Venice due to the high availability of prey in that stretch of the lagoon. Specifically, it was observed a number of times eating mullets (family Mugilidae) – a behaviour that is also well documented in photographic and video materials (Figure 4). Feeding on other species may also occur, but it was not convincingly documented. In one case, the bottlenose dolphin was observed ‘playing’ with a European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax weighing an estimated 5–7 kg – though it is unknown whether the dolphin could have subsequently ingested such a large fish.
Figure 4
While being regularly observed in the San Marco Basin, the dolphin did not spend all of its time there. On some days, it did not appear to be present at all in the Basin. There were sightings in the south-western part of Venice, up to the western mouth of the Grand Canal, just before the Ponte della Libertà, as well as throughout the Giudecca Canal and the Tronchetto Canal, including in relatively confined and shallow-water areas. On the eastern side of Venice, there were sightings in the channel of San Nicolò, almost as far as the Forte di Sant’Andrea.
In the Adriatic Sea, bottlenose dolphins are gregarious animals that tend to live in small to medium-sized groups, often ranging between 3 and 9 individuals (though groups composed of up to 70 individuals can occur); encounters with solitary individuals are not uncommon (see Table 4 in Bearzi et al., 2024a). Cases of solitary bottlenose dolphins that have settled in bays, lagoons, inland waters and even harbours have occurred in various parts of the world, including in the Adriatic Sea (Lockyer, 1990; Wilke et al., 2005; Nunny and Simmonds, 2019a, b; Simmonds and Nunny, 2022; Nunny et al., 2025). In some of these cases, the individuals returned to the open sea or joined their conspecifics after a period of solitary life; in other cases, they remained longer or even permanently within relatively confined areas. However, there have been several cases of solitary bottlenose dolphins coming to an untimely death due to irresponsible human behaviour (Nunny and Simmonds, 2019a; IJsseldijk et al., 2020).
Bottlenose dolphins occur in coastal areas and inland waters worldwide (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1990). In the Mediterranean, they inhabit a wide variety of habitats including continental shelf waters, lagoons and enclosed seas (Bearzi et al., 2009). These can include areas disturbed by noise and vessel traffic, where the dolphins may spend much time when prey is available in sufficient quantities (Marley et al., 2017; Bearzi et al., 2019; Piwetz, 2019). It is unquestionable that these animals are exposed to risks, perhaps especially when they are alone, but it must be noted that life in the open sea also involves various threats. Specifically, bottlenose dolphins off the coast of Veneto and in other Adriatic areas spend much of their time foraging in the wake of trawlers, often scavenging in their immediate proximity (Bearzi et al., 1999; Genov et al., 2008, 2019; Rako-Gospić et al., 2017; Miočić-Stošić et al., 2020; Bonizzoni et al., 2021, 2023b). They can also forage in the vicinity of purse seines (Zorica et al., 2018; Rudd et al., 2022) and are known to take fish and other organisms from gill and trammel nets – a behaviour that occasionally results in dolphin mortality (Đuras Gomerčić et al., 2009; Đuras et al., 2021; Li Veli et al., 2023; Pietroluongo et al., 2025). Furthermore, Adriatic bottlenose dolphins can forage in the immediate proximity of coastal fish farms (Pleslić et al., 2021). Such opportunistic behaviour is also common in coastal areas of Greece, where the species was recorded amid traffic from barges and other fish farm vessels (Bonizzoni et al., 2023a) as well as in highly polluted bays (Bonizzoni et al., 2014).
The extremely adaptable and opportunistic behaviour of the bottlenose dolphin (Shane et al., 1986; Bearzi et al., 2019) is ultimately one of the main factors that has allowed this species to survive in the northern Adriatic Sea, where less resilient and adaptable species such as the common dolphin have almost completely vanished (Bearzi et al., 2024a). In other words, taking risks is the price bottlenose dolphins pay to survive in a marine environment that has been exposed to extremely high levels of human impact in recent decades. The Adriatic is a highly degraded and overexploited sea (Colloca et al., 2017; Eigaard et al., 2017; Gissi et al., 2017; Ferrà et al., 2018; Ramírez et al., 2018; Russo et al., 2019) that has experienced regime shifts caused by fishing (Sguotti et al., 2022) and dramatic losses of biodiversity (e.g. Ferretti et al., 2013). The Adriatic Sea has been fished intensively since historical times, and is one of the most intensively trawled areas worldwide (Amoroso et al., 2018). A recent study used a quantitative indicator of biological state of seabed sedimentary habitats in 24 regions around the world exposed to bottom trawling, and found that the Adriatic Sea had by far the poorest seabed status (Pitcher et al., 2022).
In such a context, the ‘dolphin of Venice’ did not cause concern because of its presence in a lagoon environment where dolphins were historically present, but more specifically because of its occurrence near San Marco Square – one of the most popular and busiest tourist areas in the world. Due to the frequent occurrence of interactions with humans within this area, the dolphin appeared to be halfway between Stage 1 (“Dolphin establishes itself in a limited home range; not interested in people”) and Stage 2 (“Dolphin may start to follow boats; interested in people”) described for solitary dolphins by Nunny and Simmonds (2019a). The combination of an exceptional setting such as the San Marco Basin and the dolphin’s confident behaviour challenged the institutional duty to ensure the protection and welfare of a wild animal, calling for swift management measures as well as appropriately high levels of environmental awareness and education on the part of the community.
4.3 Acoustic deterrence
To prevent the dolphin from settling in a high-risk area in the long term, the use of fixed acoustic deterrents was suggested by CERT based on previous positive experience with a different species (specifically striped dolphins Stenella coeruleoalba) in the same area. Such deterrents could be deployed at strategic points within the San Marco Basin. However, the experts involved agreed that while it is possible that the animal would move to less-disturbed feeding areas due to the acoustic deterrents, it is also possible that it would become accustomed to the noise produced by the deterrents, and continue to use the same area despite their presence.
Decades of research indicate that it may be difficult to deter opportunistic odontocete species from approaching spots where food is promptly available (Bearzi et al., 2019). While acoustic deterrents may drive bottlenose dolphins away for varying periods of time, they rarely cause them to abandon their feeding areas (or sources, in the case of fishing gear). The duration of a study appears to be an important variable affecting results, with deterrence more likely to be observed in short-term studies, and habituation more likely in longer-term studies (e.g. Buscaino et al., 2009, vs Buscaino et al., 2021).
Still, the use of acoustic deterrent devices on trawl nets has not produced significant results with bottlenose dolphins (see Table 4 in the review by Bonizzoni et al., 2022). Ineffective deterrence on those nets could be due at least in part to the noise generated by the powerful engines of trawl vessels, as well as by the friction and contact of trawl nets, otter boards and other groundgear with the seabed (Bearzi et al., 2024b). In the case of the ‘dolphin of Venice’, such scientific evidence may be relevant, considering that any deterrents used in the San Marco Basin would also be placed in a noisy environment. Specifically, Sound Pressure Levels (SPL) recorded in the San Marco Basin were between 90 and 120 dB re 1 μPa (Bolgan et al., 2016), while commonly used ‘dolphin deterrent devices’ produce noises around 165 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m, with SPL at 50 m from the source being approximately 110 dB.
A comprehensive review by Tixier et al. (2021) concluded that acoustic deterrence is the most widely used approach worldwide, but also the least effective when it comes to reducing marine mammal feeding on nets and other fishing gear, considering habituation. Most commonly used dolphin deterrents are operated at source levels intended to prevent or minimise hearing damage, whether temporary or permanent (e.g. Southall et al., 2019). Still, existing empirical studies reported non-auditory impacts including behavioural avoidance, altered foraging patterns and physiological indicators of stress (Richardson et al., 1995; Hildebrand, 2005). Additionally, several authors have raised concerns that long-term or cumulative exposure may increase the risk of auditory injury, especially in small odontocetes like harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena (Olesiuk et al., 2002; van Beest et al., 2017; Findlay et al., 2021, 2024; Todd et al., 2021; Elmegaard et al., 2023). Finally, acoustic deterrents can increase underwater noise levels, with potential effects on fish and other species (Goetz et al., 2015; Bolgan et al., 2016; Findlay et al., 2018).
The information above, as well as the evidence reported in Section 3.2, suggests that acoustic deterrents may not be an effective tool to drive the dolphin away from the San Marco Basin, and should only be used if the animal is considered to be in imminent danger. If acoustic deterrents were to be deployed based on important justification, it would be crucial to carefully assess their potential impact based on expert advice and published information specific to bottlenose dolphins (e.g. Finneran et al., 2005, 2023).
In case acoustic deterrents are deployed, one should consider the possibility that the dolphin will become accustomed and gradually learn to tolerate their sounds. If deterrents have no lasting effect, they should be promptly removed. Deterrence should be limited to the time the dolphin remains in the high-risk area of the San Marco Basin, after ascertaining that the animal does not show abnormal behaviour – while recognising that evidence of physiological stress can be difficult or impossible to assess visually. Even if considered scientifically and ethically acceptable, as well as logistically and technically feasible, it should be noted that acoustic deterrence requires a specific exemption from existing directives. Finally, one should consider that forcing a dolphin to move away from a favourite feeding area may not represent good practice in terms of environmental education and public awareness (see Section 4.5). It is therefore necessary to carefully consider the quality of communication, as well as the contents and implications of the message being conveyed to the public (Nunny et al., 2025).
4.4 Capture hypothesis
Some Venetian citizens and organisations suggested that in order to ‘save’ the dolphin it would be necessary to capture and transfer it elsewhere. As reported above, the animal appeared to be in good health, and actively fed in the Venetian Lagoon. Based on observations conducted in the context of this study, the dolphin would not need to be saved, and it would be important to avoid interventions that could endanger it, or lead to serious accidents that would inevitably be amplified by the media.
Capturing the dolphin must be strongly discouraged for the following reasons:
Capture would pose high risks to the animal, possibly including drowning and capture myopathy (Herráez et al., 2013; Bonsembiante et al., 2017). Capture myopathy – a potentially lethal condition affecting wild animals – is caused by physiological stress due to capture, confinement and handling. It is characterised by metabolic acidosis, necrosis and muscle damage, ataxia, muscle rigidity, possibly leading to shock and death.
Capturing the dolphin would endanger the safety of operators, due to the inherent threats of complex capture operations, including the possibility of the dolphin reacting with tail blows or other violent movements, whether intentional or unintentional, which could potentially be lethal to operators (Carzon et al., 2023).
Capture would require exemptions from national and international wildlife protection directives, which can be difficult to obtain.
Capturing and handling the animal would present logistical difficulties in the face of considerable costs, with modest chances of success and high risks for the animal and the operators. It would therefore be a disproportionate measure in relation to current management needs, as well as an unacceptable measure from an ethical and animal welfare point of view.
Even if the bottlenose dolphin could be captured without incidents and transferred to the open waters of the northern Adriatic Sea, it is likely that an animal that has learned to feed in inland waters, and became accustomed to high levels of disturbance, could eventually choose to visit other inland waters – or even return to the same area as before, where it knows it can find an abundant prey supply. Finally, the hypothesis of capturing the animal and transferring it to a facility under human care would be inappropriate for a number of ethical, scientific and legal reasons (Lott and Williamson, 2017; Marino, 2018, 2025). Specifically, keeping dolphins in a controlled environment is considered inappropriate in many parts of the world, and particularly in Europe, where dolphinaria are closing in several locations and attempts are being made to release dolphins.
4.5 Tolerance, coexistence and proper management
In past centuries, seeing dolphins in the inland waters and lagoons of the northern Adriatic Sea was not uncommon. In present times, however, the ‘dolphin of Venice’ has become a phenomenon and a matter of concern. A primary challenge is managing the behaviour of people who – not being equipped with sufficient understanding of cetacean biology, animal welfare, and existing rules on proper conduct – attempt to exploit the animal’s presence for their own amusement or profit. As we have seen, extreme cases of inappropriate interaction have ranged from deliberate attempts to touch and feed the animal – with potentially serious consequences in terms of dolphin habituation – to the close approach of boats performing manoeuvres that increase the risk of injuries (such as those that were actually inflicted to the dolphin). These practices have occurred in other areas around the world (Lockyer, 1990; Orams, 2002; Durden, 2005; Cunningham-Smith et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Carzon et al., 2023) and have occasionally resulted in the mortality of solitary dolphins (Nunny and Simmonds, 2019a; IJsseldijk et al., 2020). They must be strongly discouraged.
Studies on interactions with wildlife in habitats shared with our species suggest that – given good management practices – coexistence is not only possible but even desirable (Bearzi et al., 2019). Exploring ways of instilling tolerance and promoting the type of social change that leads to widespread appreciation of wildlife is crucial. Specifically, dolphins play an important role as both flagship species (Smith and Sutton, 2008) and charismatic animals (Albert et al., 2018) that can capture public attention and mobilize support for broader marine conservation initiatives (Thomas-Walters and Raihani, 2017) – with the caveat that the perceived charisma of some animals may not lead to the protection of their own species (Courchamp et al., 2018). Ultimately, the goal is coming to view wild creatures with the wonder and respect they deserve, while identifying the most appropriate ways to coexist (Wilke et al., 2005; Bearzi et al., 2019; Nunny and Simmonds, 2019a).
Ensuring full compliance with current regulations (Table 2) and strict adherence to the Code of Conduct drawn up by experts from CERT (Table 1) represents the first step in this direction. Further progress could be made through a specific Action Plan, ideally prepared by specialists with extensive expertise in 1) the study and protection of bottlenose dolphins (especially in Adriatic waters), and 2) the mitigation of negative interactions between cetaceans and humans through best management practices, education, and awareness raising.
5 Conclusions
The presence of a bottlenose dolphin in the Venetian Lagoon and in the city of Venice would offer a valuable opportunity to gain insight into the behaviour, health, movements and diet of this marine mammal. Ensuring full compliance with Italian and international laws through appropriate control measures, speed limits and resolute deterrence of inappropriate human behaviour would bring benefits in terms of scientific knowledge and public education. Such a strategy would showcase the City of Venice’s commitment to valuing, welcoming and protecting one of the most iconic representatives of the Adriatic’s marine fauna. If managed properly, the case of the ‘dolphin of Venice’ could serve as an exemplary model for human-wildlife coexistence in urban environments.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements.
Author contributions
GB: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation. SM: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Resources. LM: Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing. GN: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. MB: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. LC: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Investigation. GP: Validation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
Part of this work was carried out within the framework of a collaboration among two partners participating in the Interreg Italy-Slovenia Project SeaInsights (ITA-SI0600267), specifically the Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science/University of Padova, and Dolphin Biology and Conservation. We are grateful to Mike Bossley and Laetitia Nunny for their valuable comments that helped improve an early draft.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The reviewer LN declared a shared affiliation with the author(s) GB to the handling editor at the time of review.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AlbertC.LuqueG. M.CourchampF. (2018). The twenty most charismatic species. PloS One13, e0199149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199149
2
AmorosoR. O.PitcherC. R.RijnsdorpA. D.McConnaugheyR. A.ParmaA. M.SuuronenP.et al (2018). Bottom trawl fishing footprints on the world’s continental shelves. PNAS115, E10275–E10282. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1802379115
3
BarausseA.CorrealeV.CurkovicA.FinottoL.RiginellaE.VisentinE.et al (2014). The role of fisheries and the environment in driving the decline of elasmobranchs in the northern Adriatic Sea. ICES I. Mar. Sci.71, 1593–1603. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fst222
4
BearziG.BonizzoniS.GenovT.Notarbartolo di SciaraG. (2024a). Whales and dolphins of the Adriatic Sea: Present knowledge, threats and conservation. Acta Adriatica65, 75–121. doi: 10.32582/aa.65.1.1
5
BearziG.BonizzoniS.ReevesR. R. (2024b). The Trawl Supremacy: Hegemony of Destructive Bottom Trawl Fisheries and some of the Management Solutions (Wädenswil: OceanCare), 134. Available online at: https://www.oceancare.org/trawlsupremacy.
6
BearziG.FerrettiS. (2000). Rare report of a bottlenose dolphin foraging in the Venice Lagoon, Italy. Eur. Res. Cetaceans14, 110–114.
7
BearziG.FortunaC. M.ReevesR. R. (2009). Ecology and conservation of common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in the Mediterranean Sea. Mammal Rev.39, 92–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2008.00133.x
8
BearziG.HolcerD.Notarbartolo di SciaraG. (2004). The role of historical dolphin takes and habitat degradation in shaping the present status of northern Adriatic cetaceans. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.14, 363–379. doi: 10.1002/aqc.626
9
BearziG.PiwetzS.ReevesR. R. (2019). “ Odontocete adaptations to human impact and vice-versa,” in Ethology and behavioral ecology of odontocetes. Ed. WürsigB. ( Springer, Cham), 211–235. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-16663-2_10
10
BearziG.PolitiE.Notarbartolo di SciaraG. (1999). Diurnal behavior of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins in the Kvarneric (northern Adriatic Sea). Mar. Mammal Sci.15, 1065–1097. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00878.x
11
BolganM.PicciulinM.CodarinA.FiorinR.ZucchettaM.MalavasiS. (2016). “ Is the Venice lagoon noisy? First passive listening monitoring of the Venice lagoon: Possible effects on the typical fish community,” in The effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. Eds. PopperA.HawkinsA. ( Springer, New York), 83–90. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8_10
12
BonizzoniS.FureyN. B.BearziG. (2021). Bottlenose dolphins in the north-western Adriatic Sea: Spatial distribution and effects of trawling. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.31, 635–650. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3433
13
BonizzoniS.FureyN.PirottaE.ValavanisV. D.WürsigB.BearziG. (2014). Fish farming and its appeal to common bottlenose dolphins: Modelling habitat use in a Mediterranean embayment. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.24, 696–711. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2401
14
BonizzoniS.GenovT.BearziG. (2023a). Bottlenose dolphins share fish farm areas while maintaining sexual segregation: Investigating group memberships through spatially and temporally explicit parameters. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.33, 70–88. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3908
15
BonizzoniS.GramoliniR.FureyN. B.BearziG. (2023b). Bottlenose dolphin distribution in a Mediterranean area exposed to intensive trawling. Mar. Environ. Res.188, 105993. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.105993
16
BonizzoniS.HamiltonS.ReevesR. R.GenovT.BearziG. (2022). Odontocete cetaceans foraging behind trawlers, worldwide. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish.32, 827–877. doi: 10.1007/s11160-022-09712-z
17
BonsembianteF.CentellegheC.RossiG.GiglioS.MadeoE.GelainM. E.et al. (2017). Clinico-pathological findings in a striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) affected by rhabdomyolysis and myoglobinuric nephrosis (capture myopathy). J. Vet. Med. Sci.79, 1013–1018. doi: 10.1292/jvms.17-0023
18
BrusinaS. (1889). Sisavci jadranskog mora [Mammals of the adriatic sea. Rad Jazu95, 79–177.
19
BuscainoG.BuffaG.SaraG.BellanteA.TonelloA. J.HardtF. A. S.et al. (2009). Pinger affects fish catch efficiency and damage to bottom gill nets related to bottlenose dolphins. Fisheries Sci.75, 537–544. doi: 10.1007/s12562-009-0059-3
20
BuscainoG.CerauloM.AlongeG.PaceD. S.GrammautaR.MaccarroneV.et al. (2021). Artisanal fishing, dolphins, and interactive pinger: a study from a passive acoustic perspective. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.318, 2241–2256. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3588
21
Capitaneria di Porto (2025). Ordinanza 89 del 14 novembre 2025 (Sede di Direzione Marittima di Venezia: Capitaneria di Porto). Available online at: https://www.guardiacostiera.gov.it/portale/documents/49535/625660/Ord+089_2025+-+Trasferimento+delfino+Mimmo.pdf.
22
CarzonP.CluaÉ.DudzinskiK. M.DelfourF. (2023). Deleterious behaviors and risks related to close interactions between humans and free-ranging dolphins: A review. Biol. Conserv.279, 109948. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109948
23
CeresoleG. (1894). Delfini nella laguna veneta [Dolphins in the venetian lagoon. Bollettino del Naturalista Collettore Allevatore Coltivatore (Suppl. Rivista Italiana di Sci. Naturali)5, 61.
24
CollocaF.ScarcellaG.LibralatoS. (2017). Recent trends and impacts of fisheries exploitation on Mediterranean stocks and ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci.4 244. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00244
25
CourchampF.JaricI.AlbertC.MeinardY.RippleW. J.ChapronG. (2018). The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PloS Biol.16, e2003997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003997
26
Cunningham-SmithP.ColbertD. E.WellsR. S.SpeakmanT. (2006). Evaluation of human interactions with a provisioned wild bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) near Sarasota Bay, Florida, and efforts to curtail the interactions. Aquat. Mamm.32, 346–356. doi: 10.1578/AM.32.3.2006.346
27
De MarchesettiC. (1882). La pesca lungo le coste orientali dell’Adria [Fishing along the eastern coasts of the Adriatic] (Trieste: Istituto Regio Governo Marittimo).
28
ĐulićB.TortićM. (1960). Verzeichnis der Säugetiere Jugoslawiens [Directory of mammals of Yugoslavia] Vol. 8 (Stuttgart: Saugetierkunde Mittelmer), 1–12.
29
ĐurasM.GalovA.KorpesK.KolencM.BaburićM.KuriljA. G.et al. (2021). Cetacean mortality due to interactions with fisheries and marine litter ingestion in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea from 1990 to 2019. Veterinarski Arhiv91, 189–206. doi: 10.24099/vet.arhiv.1254
30
Đuras GomerčićM.GalovA.GomerčićT.ŠkrtićD.ĆurkovićS.LucićH.et al. (2009). Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) depredation resulting in larynx strangulation with gill-net parts. Mar. Mamm. Sci.25, 392–401. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00259.x
31
DurdenW. N. (2005). The harmful effects of inadvertently conditioning a wild bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) to interact with fishing vessels in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, USA. Aquat. Mamm.31, 413–419. doi: 10.1578/AM.31.4.2005.413
32
EigaardO. R.BastardieF.HintzenN. T.Buhl-MortensenL.Buhl-MortensenP.CatarinoR.et al. (2017). The footprint of bottom trawling in European waters: Distribution, intensity, and seabed integrity. ICES J. Mar. Sci.74, 847–865. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsw194
33
ElmegaardS. L.TeilmannJ.Rojano-DoñateL.BrenneckeD.MikkelsenL.BalleJ. D.et al. (2023). Wild harbour porpoises startle and flee at low received levels from acoustic harassment device. Sci. Rep.13, 16691. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-43453-8
34
FaberG. L. (1883). The fisheries of the Adriatic and the fish thereof: A report of the Austro-Hungarian sea-fisheries, with detailed description of the Adriatic gulf (London: Bernard Quaritch).
35
FerràC.TassettiA. N.GratiF.PelliniG.PolidoriP.ScarcellaG.et al. (2018). Mapping change in bottom trawling activity in the Mediterranean Sea through AIS data. Mar. Pol.94, 275–281. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.013
36
FerrettiF.OsioG. C.JenkinsC. J.RosenbergA. A.LotzeH. K. (2013). Long-term change in a meso-predator community in response to prolonged and heterogeneous human impact. Sci. Rep.3, 1057. doi: 10.1038/srep01057
37
FindlayC. R.AleynikD.FarcasA.MerchantN. D.RischD.WilsonB. (2021). Auditory impairment from acoustic seal deterrents predicted for harbour porpoises in a marine protected area. J. Appl. Ecol.58, 1631–1642. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13910
38
FindlayC. R.CoomberF. G.DudleyR.BlandL.CalderanS. V.Hartny-MillsL.et al. (2024). Harbour porpoises respond to chronic acoustic deterrent device noise from aquaculture. Biol. Conserv.293, 110569. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110569
39
FindlayC. R.RippleH. D.CoomberF.FroudK.HarriesO.Van GeelN. C. F.et al. (2018). Mapping widespread and increasing underwater noise pollution from acoustic deterrent devices. Mar. Poll. Bull.135, 1042–1050. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.042
40
FinneranJ. J.CarderD. A.SchlundtC. E.RidgwayS. H. (2005). Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. J. Acoust. Soc Am.118, 2696–2705. doi: 10.1121/1.2032087
41
FinneranJ. J.SchlundtC. E.MulsowJ. (2023). Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins exposed to steady-state, 1/6-octave noise centered at 0.5 to 80 kHz. J. Acoust. Soc Am.154, 1324–1338. doi: 10.1121/10.0020728
42
GenovT.CentrihT.KotnjekP.HaceA. (2019). Behavioural and temporal partitioning of dolphin social groups in the northern Adriatic Sea. Mar. Biol.166, 11. doi: 10.1007/s00227-018-3450-8
43
GenovT.KotnjekP.LesjakJ.HaceA.FortunaC. M. (2008). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Slovenian and adjacent waters (northern Adriatic Sea). Annales (Series Hist. Naturalis)18, 227–244.
44
GissiE.MenegonS.SarrettaA.AppiottiF.MaragnoD.VianelloA.et al. (2017). Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Ionian region. PloS One12, e0180501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180501
45
GoetzS.SantosM. B.VingadaJ.CostasD. C.VillanuevaA. G.PierceG. J. (2015). Do pingers cause stress in fish? An experimental tank study with European sardine, Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum 1792) (Actinopterygii, Clupeidae), exposed to a 70 kHz dolphin pinger. Hydrobiologia749, 83–96. doi: 10.1007/s10750-014-2147-3
46
HerráezP.De Los MonterosA. E.FernándezA.EdwardsJ. F.SacchiniS.SierraE. (2013). Capture myopathy in live-stranded cetaceans. Vet. J.196, 181–188. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.09.021
47
HildebrandJ. (2005). “ Impacts of anthropogenic sound,” in Marine Mammal Research: Conservation beyond Crisis, vol. 101-124 . Eds. J.E. ReynoldsI. I. I.PerrinW. F.ReevesR. R.MontgomeryS. ( The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore).
48
IJsseldijkL. L.van SchalkwijkL.van den BergA.ten DoeschateM. T.EveraartsE.KeijlG. O.et al. (2020). Fatal attraction: the death of a solitary-sociable bottlenose dolphin due to anthropogenic trauma in the Netherlands. Lutra63, 17–32.
49
KolombatovićG. (1882). Mammiferi, anfibi e rettili della Dalmazia e pesci rari e nuovi per l’Adriatico che furono catturati nelle acque di Spalato [Mammals, amphibians and reptiles from Dalmatia and fish rare and new to the Adriatic that were caught in the waters of Split. Split: A. Zannoni.pp, 18–19.
50
LeatherwoodS.ReevesR. R. (1990). The Bottlenose Dolphin (San Diego: Academic Press).
51
Li VeliD.PetettaA.BaroneG.CeciariniI.FranchiE.MarsiliL.et al. (2023). Fishers’ perception on the interaction between dolphins and fishing activities in Italian and Croatian waters. Diversity15, 133. doi: 10.3390/d15020133
52
LockyerC. (1990). “ Review of incidents involving wild, sociable dolphins, worldwide,” in The Bottlenose Dolphin. Eds. LeatherwoodS.ReevesR. R. ( Academic Press, London), 337–353.
53
LottR.WilliamsonC. (2017). “ Cetaceans in captivity,” in Marine Mammal Welfare. Ed. ButterworthA. ( Springer, Cham), 161–181. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46994-2_11
54
MarinoL. (2018). “ The marine mammal captivity issue: time for a paradigm shift,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Eds. LinzeyA.LinzeyC. ( Palgrave Macmillan, London), 207–231. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-36671-9_13
55
MarinoL.DoyleC.RallyH.O’BrienL.TennisonM.JacobsB. (2025). An update on captive cetacean welfare. PeerJ13, e19878. doi: 10.7717/peerj.19878
56
MarleyS. A.Salgado KentC. P.ErbeC.ParnumI. M. (2017). Effects of vessel traffic and underwater noise on the movement, behaviour and vocalisations of bottlenose dolphins in an urbanised estuary. Sci. Rep.7, 13437. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-13252-z
57
MeliadòE.BavestrelloG.GnoneG.Cattaneo-ViettiR. (2020). Historical review of dolphin bounty hunting in Italy with a focus on the period 1927–37. J. Cetacean Res. Manage.21, 25–31.
58
Miočić-StošićJ.HolcerD.ĐurovićM.PleslićG.IkicaZ.VukovićV. (2020). “ Photo-identification of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Montenegrin waters,” in The Montenegrin Adriatic Coast: Marine Biology. Eds. JoksimovićA.ĐurovićM.ZonnI. S.KostianoyA. G.SemenovA. V. ( Springer, Cham), 515–531. doi: 10.1007/698_2020_686
59
NardoG. D. (1854). Notizie sui mammali viventi nel mare Adriatico specialmente sui fisetteri presi in esso nel secolo scorso e nel presente [News on the mammals living in the Adriatic Sea especially on Physeteridae caught in the past and present century. Atti Istituto Veneto Sci. Lettere e Arti4, 203–208.
60
NinniE. (1901). Sulle catture di alcuni cetacei nel mare Adriatico ed in particolare sul Delphinus tursio (Fabr.) [On the catches of some cetaceans in the Adriatic Sea and particularly on Delphinus tursio (Fabr.). Neptunia8, 3–9.
61
NinniE. (1904). L’origine e l’intelligenza dei delfini secondo i nostri pescatori [The origin and intelligence of dolphins according to our fishers. Neptunia8, 1–2.
62
NunnyL.BossleyM.BoysR. M.BrakesP.GenovT.PetersK. J.et al. (2025). Out of habitat marine mammals: Identification, causes, and management recommendations. Mar. Pol.177, 106652. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106652
63
NunnyL.SimmondsM. P. (2019a). A global reassessment of solitary-sociable dolphins. Front. Vet. Sci.5, 331. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00331
64
NunnyL.SimmondsM. P. (2019b). Corrigendum: A global reassessment of solitary-sociable dolphins. Front. Vet. Sci.6, 212. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00212
65
OlesiukP. F.NicholL. M.SowdenM. J.FordJ. K. (2002). Effect of the sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia. Mar. Mammal Sci.18, 843–862. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2002.tb01077.x
66
OramsM. B. (2002). Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: A review of issues and impacts. Tour. Manage.23, 281–293. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00080-2
67
PetitguyotM. A. C.BearziG.van den HurkY.Tejedor FuentesM.PierceG. J. (2024). Intentional killings and culling of small cetaceans due to perceived competition with fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea and Northeast Atlantic between the 18th and 20th centuries. OMBAR62, 120–162. doi: 10.1201/9781003477518-2
68
PietroluongoG.PodestàM.BelluscioD.BerioE.CanonicoC.CasaloneC.et al. (2025). Assessing fishery interaction on cetaceans stranded along the Italian coastline between 1986 and 2023. PloS One20, e0330441. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330441
69
PilleriG.GihrM. (1977). Some records of cetaceans in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Investigations Cetacea8, 85–88.
70
PitcherC. R.HiddinkJ. G.JenningsS.CollieJ.ParmaA. M.AmorosoR.et al. (2022). Trawl impacts on the relative status of biotic communities of seabed sedimentary habitats in 24 regions worldwide. PNAS119, e2109449119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2109449119
71
PiwetzS. (2019). Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behavior in an active narrow seaport. PloS One14, e0211971. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211971
72
PleslićG.Rako-GospićN.HolcerD. (2021). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in North Dalmatia, Croatia: Occurrence and demographic parameters. Mar. Mammal Sci.37, 142–161. doi: 10.1111/mms.12735
73
Rako-GospićN.RadulovićM.VučurT.PleslićG.HolcerD.MackelworthP. (2017). Factor associated variations in the home range of a resident Adriatic common bottlenose dolphin population. Mar. Poll. Bull.124, 234–244. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.040
74
RalloG. (1976). Avvistamento di un Tursiops truncatus (Montagu) nella laguna di Venezia [Sighting of a Tursiops truncatus (Montagu) in the Venetian Lagoon. Lavori Società Veneziana Sci. Naturali1, 50–51.
75
RalloG. (1979). I cetacei dell’Adriatico [Cetaceans of the Adriatic Sea. WWF Veneto4, 3–4.
76
RamírezF.CollM.NavarroJ.BustamanteJ.GreenA. J. (2018). Spatial congruence between multiple stressors in the Mediterranean Sea may reduce its resilience to climate impacts. Sci. Rep.8, 1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-33237-w
77
RichardsonW. J.GreeneC. R.MalmeC. I.ThomsonD. H. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise (San Diego: Academic Press).
78
RuddL. E.AwberyT.WallerR.CroweM.BauerJ.JacquemartA.et al. (2022). The effect of commercial and artisanal fishing practices on the behavioral budget of bottlenose dolphins off the coast of Montenegro, South Adriatic Sea. Mar. Mammal Sci.38, 990–1006. doi: 10.1111/mms.12913
79
RussoT.FranceschiniS.D’AndreaL.ScardiM.ParisiA.CataudellaS. (2019). Predicting fishing footprint of trawlers from environmental and fleet data: An application of artificial neural networks. Front. Mar. Sci.6. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00670
80
SguottiC.BischoffA.ConversiA.MazzoldiC.MöllmannC.BarausseA. (2022). Stable landings mask irreversible community reorganizations in an overexploited Mediterranean ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol.91, 2465–2479. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13831
81
ShaneS. H.WellsR. S.WürsigB. (1986). Ecology, behavior and social organization of the bottlenose dolphin: A review. Mar. Mammal Sci.2, 34–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1986.tb00026.x
82
SimmondsM. P.NunnyL. (2022). “ Marine mammals seeking human company,” in Marine Mammals: The Evolving Human Factor. Eds. Notarbartolo di SciaraG.WürsigB. ( Springer, Cham), 307–335. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-98100-6_10
83
SmithH.SamuelsA.BradleyS. (2008). Reducing risky interactions between tourists and free-ranging dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in an artificial feeding program at Monkey Mia, Western Australia. Tour. Manage.29, 994–1001. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.001
84
SmithA. M.SuttonS. G. (2008). The role of a flagship species in the formation of conservation intentions. Hum. Dimens. Wildl.13, 127–140. doi: 10.1080/10871200701883408
85
SouthallB. L.FinneranJ. J.ReichmuthC.NachtigallP. E.KettenD. R.BowlesA. E.et al. (2019). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Updated scientific recommendations for residual hearing effects. Aquat. Mamm.45, 125–232. doi: 10.1578/AM.45.2.2019.125
86
Thomas-WaltersL.RaihaniN. J. (2017). Supporting conservation: The roles of flagship species and identifiable victims. Conserv. Lett.10, 581–587. doi: 10.1111/conl.12319
87
TixierP.LeaM. A.HindellM. A.WelsfordD.MazéC.GourguetS.et al. (2021). When large marine predators feed on fisheries catches: Global patterns of the depredation conflict and directions for coexistence. Fish Fish.22, 31–53. doi: 10.1111/faf.12504
88
ToddV. L.WilliamsonL. D.JiangJ.CoxS. E.ToddI. B.RuffertM. (2021). Prediction of marine mammal auditory-impact risk from Acoustic Deterrent Devices used in Scottish aquaculture. Mar. Poll. Bull.165, 112171. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112171
89
TroisE. F. (1894). Elenco dei cetacei dell’Adriatico [List of cetaceans of the Adriatic. Atti Regio Istituto Veneto di Sci. Lettere e Arti7, 1315–1320.
90
van BeestF. M.Kindt-LarsenL.BastardieF.BartolinoV.Nabe-NielsenJ. (2017). Predicting the population-level impact of mitigating harbor porpoise bycatch with pingers and time-area fishing closures. Ecosphere8, e01785. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1785
91
VatovaA. (1928). Compendio della flora e fauna del Mare Adriatico presso Rovigno con la distribuzione geografica delle specie bentoniche [Compendium of the flora and fauna of the Adriatic Sea near Rovinj with the geographical distribution of benthic species. Regio Istituto di Biol. Marina per l’Adriatico14, 143.
92
VatovaA. (1932). Elenco degli animali marini che più spesso si incontrano nel mare Adriatico presso Rovigno [List of marine animals that are most often encountered in the Adriatic Sea near Rovinj. Note dell’Istituto Italo-germanico di Biol. Marina di Rovigno d’Istria4, 10–12.
93
WilkeM.BossleyM.DoakW. (2005). Managing human interactions with solitary dolphins. Aquat. Mamm.31, 427–433. doi: 10.1578/AM.31.4.2005.427
94
ZoricaB.Čikeš KečV.ZankiK.GrubišićL.Šegvić-BubićT. (2018). Interaction between small pelagic purse seine fishery and its top predators: Case study in the eastern Adriatic Sea. Acta Adriatica59, 185–190. doi: 10.32582/aa.59.2.3
Summary
Keywords
acoustic deterrence, Adriatic Sea, animal welfare, coexistence, conservation, interaction, management, solitary dolphins
Citation
Bearzi G, Mazzariol S, Mizzan L, Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Bonato M, Ceolotto L and Pietroluongo G (2026) Case Report: The ‘dolphin of Venice’: management of a solitary bottlenose dolphin in the Venetian Lagoon. Front. Ethol. 5:1770678. doi: 10.3389/fetho.2026.1770678
Received
18 December 2025
Revised
01 January 2026
Accepted
08 January 2026
Published
25 February 2026
Volume
5 - 2026
Edited by
Rebecca M. Boys, Massey University, New Zealand
Reviewed by
Mike Bossley, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, United Kingdom
Laetitia Nunny, OceanCare, Switzerland
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Bearzi, Mazzariol, Mizzan, Notarbartolo di Sciara, Bonato, Ceolotto and Pietroluongo.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Guido Pietroluongo, guido.pietroluongo@unipd.it
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.